MGT 325 notes- Erwin PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes...

Description

MGT 325 notes- Chapter 3 Chapter 3: Burger King, Pebble Beach Company and Luberski. Burger King 1. Burger King v. Rudzewicz; 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (1985) 2. alm Chapter 3 notes: - state judicial systems are separate branches of state government - court of general jurisdication: vested with the authority to hear a broad range of matters, including criminal cases and civil cases - court of limited jurisdiction: restricted as to the subject matter of the claims. Example: bankruptcy court only sees bankruptcy cases, city/municipal only sees minor criminal and traffic cases. Typically do not handle civil actions - Appellate courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. May only hear appeals of decisions of lower courts. The case was usually heard in a lower court before - Courts of general jurisdiction are typically refereed to as trial courts - Court of original jurisdiction: court before which a claim is first presented. - Doctrine of ripeness: requires the occurrence of an act or event which damages or threatens eminent damage or injury. Courts usually decline to address purely speculative matters. - Doctrine of standing- contemplates that the plantiff have a concrete stake in the outcome of a lawsuit. Plaintiff may be an individual, a company or an association or prganization which represents individuals who will be affected by legislation, regulation or the actions of other parties, including governmental agencies. Case briefings: 1. Case name, citation and history 2. Facts. Short, discrete sentences. 3. Issues. State the issues of the case in the form of a question that can be answered yes or no. 4. Holding. State the court’s decision, ideally in single sentence. 5. Reasoning. Summarize the courts analysis and reasoning. Note which facts the court found controlling and describe the court’s application of precedent or existing law to the particular facts of the case. Lengthy part. Chapter 2: Ledbetter, Chavez, Plessy, Brown, L.A. Schlecter and Wickard. Read the digests of cases on pages 2-19 to 2-22 Ledbetter: 1. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc ; 550 U.S. 618, 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007) 2. Ledbetter charged Goodyear following her retirement citing gender discrimination under Title VII. District court allowed the claim to get to trial. She alleged former supervisors’ negative evaluations due to her gender, leading

to earning less than male coworkers. Goodyear denied discrimination, and the jury awarded back pay and damages to Ledbetter. 3. Issues: 4. The court revoked their original decision of awarding Ledbetter backpay and damages, due to insufficient evidence. 5. Originally, the jury sided with Ledbetter due to claims of salary and performance discrimination due to her gender. However, Goodyear filed an appeal due to the fact that the individual filing the Title VII pay discrimination claim must file an EEOC charge within 180 days of the “alleged unlawful employment practice”. Therefore, the jury’s decision was overturned and the court cited insufficient evidence. Question 1: The Supreme Court’s decision does place a heavy burden on the employee to periodically monitor whether the employer is discriminating, however, the employee should be doing this already. Question 2: It is realistic for the Supreme Court to expect employers to freely provide information regarding the relative wages of male versus female employee. An employer can respond to inquiries regarding suspected male-female pay disparities by providing concrete data comparing their male employees’ salaries to their female counterparts, and by also including an analysis format by which they judge how much to pay the employees. Chavez: 1. Chavez v. Sievers ; 118 Nev. 288, 43 P .3d 1022 (2002) 2. Sievers, the owner of a small business, hired her acquaintance, Chavez as an employee. Sievers later fired Chavez for incompetence. Chavez filed a complaint against the company citing that he was fired for his race. Chavez claimed a violation of his civil rights under title VII. He alleged that the company was unfair to Hispanics specifically. Siever’s company filed a motion on grounds that they do not employ 15+ employees, and are therefore not held to Title VII and the Nevada Statute, NRS 613.330. These laws state that they only apply to companies with 15+ employees. 3. Issues: 4. The court recognized the injustice of racial discrimination, but decided to resolve the issue through legislation and provide solutions in the case of companies employing 15+ employees. 5. The court did not side with Chavez’s case due to the lack of law violations. Because the company in which the defendant owns employed less than 15 people, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not apply. In addition, the Nevada Statute, NRS 613.330 only applies to businesses with over 15 employees. Since the company did not fit that requirement, there was insufficient reasoning to press charges against the defendant. Question 1: ** The anti-discrimination law which applies only to employers of fifteen or more employees is a substantive law. Question 2: The statute discussed in the case involves private law. Question 3: The statute discussed in the case involved civil law.

Question 4: Technically, it is unfair to protect employees of larger businesses from unlawful discrimination, but not those of smaller businesses. However, it depends on the context. Because not as much diversity is included in small businesses, it is much easier to allege that a small business is being discriminatory. In addition, it is often much easier and more common for larger businesses to take advantage of their employees or hide discrimination. Question 5: The Nevada Supreme Court

Question 6: The Nevada Supreme Court refused to create such a common law right because

Plessy 1. Plessy v. Ferguson; 163 U.S. 537 (1896 2. Louisiana law required railway companies to provide separate but equal accommodations. The law imposed fines for passenger resistance to stay in their race-assigned region of the train. The petitioner was of mixed race, being 1/8 African, 7/8 Caucasian. The conductor insisted that he vacate the white coach car and relocate. He refused, and was ejected from the train and transported to jail. The petitioner claimed that the statute was in conflict with the US Constitution. 3. Issues: 4. The court denied the petitioner’s plea, and further enforced the concept of requiring “separate but equal” accommodations for white and colored passengers. 5. The petitioner argued that the “separate but equal” law was unconstitutional, and that it violated the Thirteenth amendment (abolishing slavery), and the Fourteenth amendment (prohibits certain restrictive legislation on the part of the states). The court found the thirteenth amendment to have no correlation with the case at hand. The court, therefore, sided with Louisiana Law, and further enforced the concept of separate but equal accommodations. Brown 1. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka; 347 U.S. 483 (1954) 2. African-American minors sought to be admitted to public schools, although they were segregated. The “separate but equal” law was still in effect. The petitioners argued that the accommodations of the different schools were not equal, and claimed they were deprived of equal protection of the laws. 3. Issues: 4. The court concluded that the “separate but equal” law did not fit in to public education, and that separate educational buildings for race were unequal. 5. The reasoning behind the decision to abolish “separate but equal” law in terms of public education had to do with the inequality that African-American children received from their educational facilities. This violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Wickard 1. Wickard v. Filburn; 317 U.S. 111 (1942) 2. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 sought to restrict the amount of wheat which may be produced for market. Argued that wheat grown for home consumption would influence prices on the market. Amendatory Act of May 26, 1941 increased penalties upon “farm marketing excess” and included wheat. 3. Issues: 4. The court decided upon increasing penalties form “farm marketing excess”, and included penalties for wheat farming, which had previously been excluded. 5. The reasoning behind the court’s decision had to do with

Burger King, Pebble Beach company, and Luberski Burger King 1. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz; 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (1985) 2. Michigan resident allegedly broke franchise agreement with the Florida corporation, Burger King by failing to make payments. BK sued the defendants in Florida, due to their franchise agreement where Rudzewicz agreed to pay over $1 million over the course of 20 year agreement. Rudzewicz filed a motion to have the charges dismissed, because of the fact they are not Florida residents. 3. If the defendants signed the franchise agreement, agreeing to pay over $1 million over the course of 20 years, along with royalties, does it matter that they are located in a different state? 4. District court denied Rudzewicz motions initially. In the end, the judge concluded that the defendants costs were payable in Michigan, and that they dealt with BK through their Michigan office, not their Florida office. 5. Rudzewicz motions were denied initially, due to the holding that “a non resident BK franchise is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court”, given the obligations of the franchise agreement. Rudzewicz appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Citcuit. The court reversed the decision, because the District Court could not exercise personal jurisdiction due to “under these circumstances would offend the fundamental fairness which is the touchstone of due process..” BK appealed this judgment. Pebble Beach Company 1. Pebble Beach Company v. Caddy; 452 F. 3d 1151, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R 9121, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6260, 2006.C09.0002979 (9th Cir. 2006) 2. Dual citizen of US and UK runs B&B/restaurant in England. Located on a pebbly beach, he named the B&B “Pebble Beach”. Similar website domain to the golf course (www.pebblebeach.com vs www.pebblebeach-uk.com). 3. Issues

4. Pebble Beach sues Caddy; Caddy moves to dismiss the complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service and progress. .PB appealed Court decision to the Ninth Circuit. 5. PB sued Caddy under the Lanham Act and the CA Business and Professions Code for intentional infringement and dilution. Court granted Caddy’s motion on personal jurisdiction grounds. The court found that Caddy had not expressly aimed his conduct at CA or the US and is not subject to personal jurisdiction of the district court. A passive website and domain do not satisfy the Calder effects test. Affirmed. Luberski 1. Luberski, Inc. v. Oleficio Elli Amato S.R.L.l 171 Cal. App. 4th 409, 89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 774 (2009) 2. Luberski sues Oleficio for breach of contract, monies had and received and fraud. Oleficio dialed to deliver 12,000 cases of olive oil, for which Luberski paid $406,000. Contract required Oleficio to deliver it, but it never showed. 3. Issues: whether goods to Long Beach harbor purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the forum, also if it comports with jurstice to force Amato to litigate the dispute in CA. 4. Oleficio filed a motion claiming that the Superior Court did not have personal jurisdiction. The Superior Court agreed, and the Circuit Court reversed the Superior Court order. 5. After Oleficio’s motion, the court held that general jurisdiction did not exist because Amato’s contacts with CA were not substantial, continuous and systematic. Also held that specific jurisdiction did not exist because there was no evidence. They reached a compromise, where Amato would pay for freight and ensurance. The Circuit court emphasized that Amato had agreed to deliver the goods in CA....